KIDS’ BRAIN DEVELOPMENT AFFECTED BY ENVIRONMENT

Socioeconomic status plays a role in the development of certain parts of kids’ brains associated with memory, learning, and stress response, according to a Columbia University report.

Youth Today’s James Swift has the story. Here’s a clip:

According to the study, researchers observed a correlation between the education and income level of parents and the development of several areas of their children’s brains – in particular, the areas vital to stress reception, learning and memorization.

“Socioeconomic disparities in childhood are associated with remarkable differences in cognitive and socio-emotional development during a time when dramatic changes are occurring in the brain,” the report states.
Using a broad base of subjects, from families that lived at the poverty threshold to families that made more than $100,000 annually, researchers found that the hippocampi – the portion of the brain essential in memorization and learning functions – of children living with parents with higher incomes had a larger “volume” than those in subjects raised by parents with lower incomes. Similarly, researchers found that the amygdalae – the portion of the brain that processes stress – of children living with parents with more educational experiences had lower “volumes” than those in children raised by parents with less educational experiences.

The report, which is behind a pay wall, seems to focus on family income and parents’ education levels. The larger picture, however, points to the fact that children in poorer families with lower education levels are faced with more trauma than their more affluent counterparts.

In a phenomenal September episode of This American Life, host Ira Glass looks at, among other things, the relationship between brain development and education. About a third of the way through the show, Glass introduces SF pediatrician Nadine Burke Harris, who explains why early childhood trauma stunts cognitive growth. Here’s his introduction to Burke’s work:

It’s well-documented that poor children do worse on tests and worse in school than better-off ones. This is the so-called achievement gap.

What this new science seems to indicate is that what is holding these children back is not poverty. It’s not the lack of money or resources in their homes. It’s stress. If you grew up in a poor household, it is more likely to be a household the just stresses you out in ways that kids in better-off homes are not stressed out. And that stress prevents you from developing these non-cognitive skills.

Be sure to listen to the whole thing—it’s important and we’ll definitely be coming back to these issues.

PRETRIAL PROGRAMS WORK FOR SF

Pretrial release programs are seeing success in the Bay Area, with a reported 97% of San Francisco participants showing up to their court dates. Because of the developed pretrial programs, SF boasts jail populations far below capacity, unlike…you know…LA. Advocates say the release of qualified defendants awaiting trial would ease CA jail overcrowding, save taxpayer dollars, and allow nonviolent detainees to continue providing for their families while they wait.

The SF Chronicle’s Marisa Lagos has the story. Here’s a clip:

Advocates, including the American Civil Liberties Union and some Democratic lawmakers, say the programs promote both public safety and justice by using scientific evaluations to help judges decide whether it is safe to release a defendant before they go to trial. The current bail system, they say, favors wealth and strands low-income people behind bars because they cannot afford bail amounts. They also argue that a defendant who gets out of jail is less likely to accept a plea deal and has a better chance of an acquittal or a shorter sentence if they go to trial.

Opponents, including the bail bond industry and some law enforcement and victims rights groups, say defendants pose a lesser flight risk when they have put up money for a bail bond and that pretrial programs pose a risk to public safety, because they do not focus on the crime a person is charged with.

Under the programs, nonviolent defendants who qualify for pretrial release are either freed on their own recognizance – that is, only a promise to appear, though often there are restrictions on their behavior – or placed on supervised release, which can range from mandated group therapy to probation-like check-ins or electronic monitoring.

In San Francisco, for example, someone placed on supervised release may have to go to an anger management group once a week until the case is adjudicated and will have a case manager checking in to make sure that person appears in court.

Supporters believe the programs help counties better manage overcrowded jails. Jail populations in some counties have increased since Gov. Jerry Brown’s realignment program started a year ago. Under the program, judges sentence some offenders to jails who in the past would have gone to state prisons.

But while some counties have overcrowded jails, San Francisco has been able to keep its jail population well below capacity for years, officials say, in part because of its 15-year-old pretrial release program.

“Last year, we released about 1,300 (pretrial defendants). … Our cases are predicated on public safety, and by and large, our folks are indigent,” said Will Leong, director of the city’s Pretrial Diversion Project, who said that as many as 97 percent of participants show up for their court date. “If they could afford to bail out, they do so before we can get to them.”

PRISON MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS’ SALARY CONTROVERSY

A 2001 class-action lawsuit (Plata v. Schwarzenegger) against the State of California over the ghastly quality of medical care in the state’s 33 prisons resulted in California’s prison health care system being handed over to a federal receiver in 2005 after the court found that things were SO bad that they violated the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (cruel and unusual punishment). But nothing is ever simple. And so it appears one of the unintended consequences was that the receiver’s unchecked power to set medical staff’s pay grades and make hiring decisions seems have sent him off the rails. The average salary of CA prison doctors last year was nearly $379,000, with the highest salary paid to a Salinas psychiatrist to the tune of over $800,000.

ABC News has the AP story. Here’s how it opens:

A doctor at California Medical Facility was paid more than $410,000 last year, while a registered nurse at High Desert State Prison made nearly $236,000 — more than twice the statewide average in both cases.

A pharmacist at Corcoran State Prison was paid more than $196,000, nearly double what is typical across the state.

Compensation for medical providers has soared in the prison system since a federal judge seized control of inmate health care in 2006 and appointed an overseer with the power to hire and set pay levels.

As the official begins to wind down his oversight, the medical hiring and salary increases have helped lead to an improvement in inmate care, but it has increased the bill for taxpayers too.

It has also led to criticism that the official — called a receiver — provided a “Cadillac” level of care for convicted felons. A state review found that only Texas pays its state prison doctors more that California.

“The problem that we had is that the receiver was not accountable to anybody,” said former state Sen. George Runner, a Republican who has frequently criticized the program.

“So the receiver could just do or choose to spend whatever amount of money he thought was necessary to solve his problem, and unfortunately now the state is stuck with that,” he said.

The receiver for medical care, J. Clark Kelso, said the state has been free to collectively bargain health care providers’ salaries since a court order increasing their wages expired three years ago.

The receiver’s goal was to correct a prison medical system that was ruled unconstitutional for its substandard care and, at one point, contributed to an inmate death each week through negligence or malfeasance.

To do that, the receivership increased salaries, created new positions at high pay and hired hundreds of employees to fill longtime vacancies.

Total spending on medical, dental and mental health care for inmates, numbering 124,700, has more than doubled over the last decade, from $1.1 billion in fiscal year 2003-04 to a projected $2.3 billion this year.

LASD DEPUTIES SNAP PHOTOS TO HELP PREVENT MISTAKEN IDENTIFICATION

Under a new program, certain LASD deputies are now armed with cameras in an effort to lower the number of innocent people jailed as a result of mistaken identity. A December 2011 LA Times report showed that almost 1,500 wrongful incarcerations took place over the last five years, although the number has been declining.

The LA Times’ Robert Faturechi and Jack Leonard have the story. Here’s a clip:

Along with his Taser, baton and handgun, Los Angeles County sheriff’s Det. David Huelsen has a new tool for meting out justice: a point-and-shoot camera.

The Malibu traffic detective is among a handful of cops the Sheriff’s Department has equipped with digital cameras as part of an effort to reduce the number of innocent people jailed after being mistaken for wanted criminals.

The reforms come after a Times investigation detailed how authorities in the county had incarcerated people mistaken for wanted criminals more than 1,480 times over five years. Some spent weeks behind bars before the errors were realized. In recent months, other law enforcement agencies around the country have also been confronted with the problem, but the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department is emerging as one of the leaders in attempting to solve it.

Deputies are using the cameras to take photos of people who get cited but don’t have ID. If a defendant misses court appearances and becomes the subject of an arrest warrant, officials hope having the photos on file will avoid cases of mistaken identity.

US NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DISCUSSES DNA SAMPLING ON ALL FELONY ARRESTS

An eleven-judge panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals deliberated for an hour Wednesday on whether or not the mandatory collection of DNA from anyone facing a felony charge was a violation of the Fourth Amendment, as an unreasonable search and seizure.

San Jose Mercury’s Howard Mintz has the story. Here’s a clip:

The majority of the judges expressed particular concern that the DNA is taken from people regardless of whether they are later charged or convicted of a crime. The arguments were the latest round in an American Civil Liberties Union challenge to the nine-year-old DNA collection law.

9th Circuit Judge N. Randy Smith grilled a deputy attorney general, insisting there is no reason California’s law should permit DNA collection at the point of arrest.

“I don’t see what the government loses by putting it off until conviction, or until a judge looks at it … or at least the prosecutor looks at it, rather than just the police look at it,” said Smith, a Republican appointee of former President George W. Bush.

9th Circuit Judge Raymond Fisher also expressed reservations about the government seizing a person’s genetic map at the point of arrest. The ACLU case was filed on behalf of several people who were arrested and never charged with a crime, yet were forced to provide DNA samples.

“Now if I’m arrested, I wind up leaving behind in the custody of the government the intimate details of my medical condition, my heritage, whatever is in that DNA sample,” Fisher said to Deputy Attorney General Daniel Powell.

(We’ll let you know when the court hands down a decision.)

MONEY BAIL IS A COSTLY FAILURE, SAYS REPORT

A new report from the Justice Policy Institute calls money bail a discriminatory policy that adds billions in taxpayer costs without increasing public safety. The report also outlines proven alternative pretrial detention and release services. Here’s a clip from the press release:

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said last year that taxpayers spend over $9 billion in jail costs alone to keep people in pretrial detention. Meanwhile, people who are held in jail while awaiting a court date may lose their job and housing. Their children and families may suffer from not having that person in the home taking care of his or her responsibilities. People who are jailed while awaiting trial are also more likely to be found guilty and go to prison than their counterparts who are free. This is for a variety of reasons, including the impact of enduring harsh jail conditions, reduced access to defense attorneys, inability to maintain the types of social and personal responsibilities, and the reality that showing up in shackles and a jail jumpsuit creates an impression of guilt on judges and juries.

“Our constitution and laws are supposed to protect the presumption of innocence,” said Dr. Melissa Neal, author of Bail Fail and senior research associate at JPI. “Yet thousands of people are held in jails before trial because they don’t have access to money for bail. This is a waste of taxpayer money and it causes tremendous collateral consequences to those being unnecessarily incarcerated.”

The report shows how the average bail amount for people who are detained has more than doubled from $39,800 in 1992 to $89,900 in 2006. This is despite evidence that higher bail amounts are not related to more public safety and that people who are unable to afford money bail are often a lower risk of dangerousness or failure to appear in court – the two legal justifications to incarcerate someone pretrial – than those who can make bail.

[SNIP]

Bail Fail points to pretrial service (PTS) agencies, in particular, as effective in protecting public safety, ensuring people appear in court, reducing jail populations and their costs, as well as, leveling the playing field so that all people, regardless of income, have their rights protected. By using validated risk assessment instruments, PTS agencies can determine if a person is high, medium or low risk for dangerousness or failing to appear in court. They also can provide appropriate services that increase a person’s likelihood of pretrial success, including supervision and monitoring, referrals to drug treatment, and referrals to social service agencies to address other issues a person may be facing.

The report notes that Washington, D.C., through effective use of its Pretrial Services Agency, has successfully moved away from money bail. In D.C., 80 percent of people charged with an offense are released on nonfinancial bail options to await resolution of their charge while 15 percent are kept in pretrial detention. Only 5 percent are released using some form of financial bail, but there is no use of for-profit bail bondsmen services. The Pretrial Services Agency has reported that 88 percent successfully complete the pretrial process by appearing in court and not being rearrested.

U.S. DEFENSE LAWYERS COME DOWN HARD IN FAVOR OF PRETRIAL RELEASE

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers has recently passed a resolution that strongly favors pretrial release alternatives to the conventional bail system that operates in many states, California prominently among them, with high jail populations the result.

Here’s the opening statement of their resolution:

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers believes pretrial liberty must be the norm and detention prior to trial the carefully limited exception.1 “Unless [an accused’s] right to bail before trial is preserved, the presumption of innocence, secured only after centuries of struggle would lose its meaning.”

To put it in plainer terms, the NACDL believes that most people who have not been accused of serious crimes should be able to get out before trial. Getting out should be the norm, say the PDs. Keeping people locked up before their cases get sentenced or go to trial, should be the exception.

However, particularly in big cities—most notably Los Angeles—the opposite is true. Bails are now set so high that a large percentage of people cannot afford the 10 percent, nonrefundable fee that a bondsman charges, much less the bail itself, which either must be paid, or one must put up as collateral something of equal or greater value, like a house or some other asset.

As for the worry that most people won’t show up for trial without a hefty bail, studies suggest otherwise.

Timothy Murray, the executive director of the Pretrial Justice Institute, explains in a May interview with State Legislatures Magasine.

“Several years ago the National Institute of Justice, (NIJ), the research arm of the Justice Department, conducted a controlled experiment testing the efficacy of supervised pretrial release. (Supervised pretrial release accountably monitors pretrial defendants in the community using an array of supervision conditions designed to minimize failure to appear in court and re-offending.)

“NIJ’s experiment showed conclusively that randomly assigned defendants who were placed into supervision had better outcomes than those who were released on financial bonds.

“Other studies have shown the costs of supervised pretrial release averages is less than $10 per day, a fraction of the cost of housing, feeding and medical care required for defendants in local jails.”

Naturally the bail bond industry is less than thrilled at the thought of all that income flying out the door.

In the same article, Dennis Bartlett of the American Bail Coalition explains why he believes the existing bail system is better (so if you click through, read both POVs).

In his testimony before the jails commission, Sheriff Lee Baca—to his credit —brought up pretrial release as part of his hoped for reforms that will lower the jail population and, I think, in general he’s for it, if an adequate tool for assessing who is eligible for PTR and, if so, what form.

Whether he will make it enough of a priority to get it done, remains to be seen.

But the sheriff should be commend for taking some first steps.

Photo by WitnessLA

***

EDITOR’S NOTE: A few years ago, Florida’s largest counties noticed that the majority of the people crowding their jails were awaiting trial. The majority of those being detained were not charged with serious offenses, which meant they could have bailed out, but they simply couldn’t afford to do so. So they languished behind bars and the county paid the tab. Facing tight budgets and overcrowded jails, those same Florida counties decided to institute a system of pretrial release for the people who qualified. Now, many California counties are looking at similar strategies, most particularly the state’s largest county, our own Los Angeles.

Of late, Sheriff Baca appears to have grown genuinely serious about pretrial alternatives, especially following the recent release of the report on the matter by prison and jail population expert, James Austin, a report with which the sheriff closely cooperated.

So will it be a go? After all, given our own jail overcrowding and tight budget issues, who would oppose such a plan, especially if it’s worked well in other complicated jurisdictions?

WitnessLA reporter Matt Fleischer has the answer to that very question.

(Oh, and in addition to what Matt tells you, you might want to ask Florida.)

WILL THE BONDSMAN LOBBY TRY TO STOP PRETRIAL RELEASE?

by Matt Fleischer

It’s been more than a year since California Governor Jerry Brown signed the AB 109 prison realignment plan into law, which allows non-violent, non-serious, and non-sex offenders to serve their sentences in county jails instead of state prisons. Since that time, county governments have been struggling to keep up with the overcrowding in their jails caused by the influx of inmates serving their sentences locally. And they aren’t happy about it.

In a budget address this week, Manhattan Beach City Manager Dave Carmany, forced to hire a new jailer due to a rising local inmate population, argued that AB 109 was straining the municipal criminal justice system—especially the jails—and was somehow responsible for a local crime wave. “AB 109 and its effect on sentencing,” he wrote, “has created a sense among criminals that the risk is worth the consequence.”

According to a study released this week by The Center on Juvenile & Criminal Justice, a San Francisco based a criminal justice reform think, however, the problem of jail overcrowding far predates AB 109. According to the report, in 2010, 71 percent of inmates in California’s various county jail systems were not yet convicted of any crime—rather they were charged and are awaiting trial. We’re talking about a population of roughly 50,000 people out of a total jail population of 71,000. Keeping these individuals incarcerated costs taxpayers $100 a day per head. Save the calculator. I’ll do the math for you: that’s $1.85 billion a year.

Obviously, some are dangerous people accused of serious crimes, who can’t be safely released into the public sphere. But plenty are fit for release with a pretrial system of check-ins and electronic monitoring. So why aren’t they being let go? The commercial bail industry and its powerful lobby are the prime roadblock, argues the CJCJ. Simply put, the bail companies don’t want to lose the income that pretrial release would eliminate.

Jails are now more often utilized as a facility to house those awaiting resolution of the charges filed against them, as opposed to sentenced offenders who are serving their time. The commercial bail system has significantly led to this increase of the unsentenced jail population.

Moreover, the commercial bail system has discriminated against poor and middle class defendants and the monetary terms of bail imposed results in racially disparate detention. For instance, Latino and African American defendants are more likely to be held in jail than whites because they cannot afford to post bail. The mortgage crisis has further exacerbated the disparate detention of the poor and people of color. Historically, individuals and families used their homes as collateral to raise funds to pay for bail. Unfortunately, high rates of bankruptcy, foreclosure, and plunging home values in low-income communities mean that fewer people are able to use their homes as collateral to post bond.

The Center on Juvenile & Criminal Justice report isn’t the first to delve into this territory in recent memory. In 2011, the VERA Institute published a report on the pernicious role private bail plays in the LA County Jail system. Among other interesting tidbits, the report noted that in order to ease overcrowding, the LA Sheriff’s Department instituted a minimum bail of $25,000 before they will allow an arrestee to be booked at the Inmate Reception Center. Judges responded by simply raising their bail settings to $25,000—even for nonviolent crimes. Standard bail requested by prosecutors for many low-level felonies like hand-to-hand drug sales, if the accused has priors, is often as high as $250,000

This series of moves virtually guaranteed that poor individuals with no house to put up as bond stayed in jail for months—even years— at a time until their trial date. Although private bail bond companies will post bond, they will only do so for a 10 percent, non-refundable fee up front. If you don’t have the money—and there are plenty of folks out there who don’t have $2,500 cash to spare, much less $25,000–you’re staying in jail.

The Vera report advised that pretrial detention be based on actual risk assessment, rather than an arbitrary bail fee. A year later, with the more recent release of Dr. James Austin’s plan to close Men’s Central Jail, the Sheriff’s Department is taking this idea seriously. Austin identified 1,000 non-violent pretrial inmates who could be released with electronic monitoring. This kind of system costs $2.50 per day instead of $100.

Dale Miller of the California Bail Agents Association, however, counters that electronic monitoring is unreliable.

“In Texas, a recent study showed that close to 70 percent alerts were false alarms. If you get all this noise, how do you know what’s a real violation?”

Miller also argues that the 71 percent pretrial detention figure in California is misleading.

“It’s true that 29 percent in county jails are convicted. But that doesn’t mean 71 percent are pretrial. You got probation and parole violators, ICE holds. These people are counted as pretrial, but a pretrial agency can’t release them.”

Miller says there are better ways to deal with jail overcrowding than unbonded pretrial release. “My issues are that bails tend to be way too high. LA County’s bail schedule is huge. [The bail bond industry] can get people out of custody for much, much smaller amounts of bond, and keep tabs on them without taxpayers footing the bill.”

All that said, the bail bond industry claim they are not actively lobbying against Austin’s plan. Miller was unfamiliar with the specifics of the report, as was Dennis Bartlett of the American Bail Coalition. But, Bartlett told me, “Jim Austin is considered an objective source, whose research I usually trust.”

Bartlett added the caveat, however, that the idea of electronic monitoring without a surety bond is a bad one.

“In the state of Georgia, a GPS monitoring system can only be used in combination with an surety bond. That system seems to work very well. If you’re release people haphazardly, then you’ve got people going everywhere with no one keeping a serious eye on them. I’d have reservations about that.”

However, since “surety bond” is just another fancy way of describing the same pay-for-freedom scheme that got us here in the first place, it isn’t clear what change Bartlett’s strategy would represent.

As of now, the Austin plan does not call for surety bonds to accompany electronic monitoring. If surety bonds suddenly become a sticking point during negotiations with the LA County Board of Supervisors and the CEO, we’ll have a good idea why.

PS: In 2010 NPR’s Laura Sullivan did an excellent 3-part series on the issues surrounding pretrial release and the bail system that’s worth a listen. The last part of the series had to do with the battle over Florida.

***The photo of Dog the Bounty Hunter is courtesy of his fan club site: dogthebountyhunter.com. He is not actually a bail bondsman, yet he’s nevertheless undeniably picturesque and he often works for bail bondsmen retrieving bail jumpers, hence the frail rationale for his visual inclusion here. We have no idea how he stands on pretrial release.

EDITOR’S NOTE: On any given day, the biggest chunk of the County’s jail population—45 percent— is made up of people waiting to go to trial.

Most of that pretrial 45 percent are in for felony charges. About half of those with a felony charge are accused of violent or sex related crimes.

But this leaves a big chunk of people who are in jail awaiting trial for far less serious charges. Many of this group are locked up, not because they are considered a public safety risk, or a flight risk, but because they simply don’t have the money or the assets (like a house) that will allow them to make bail.

Both Dr. James Austin and the Vera Institute compiled reports for LA County that recommended implementing an innovative system pretrial supervision, which would mean that certain people could get out, pretrial, without having to post bail, but they will have some element of supervision to insure that they show up for their court dates.

Matt Fleischer is keeping a close eye on the issue and has an update.

DR. JAMES AUSTIN SAYS THAT MAKING PRETRIAL RELEASE A REALITY IN LOS ANGELES IS NOT A SURE THING—BUT THE CHANCES LOOK GOOD

by Matthew Fleischer

It’s been nearly a month since LA County Sheriff Lee Baca stood side-by-side at a press conference with nationally-renown corrections expert Dr. James Austin to debut Austin’s plan to shutter Men’s Central Jail and reduce the LA County Jail population by up to 3,000 inmates. Austin worked with the Sheriff’s department for three months to develop his plan. (

The Austin plan, if you’ll remember, calls for the release of selected non-violent inmates awaiting trial, the transfer of inmates to lower-cost fire camps, expanded release opportunities through the sheriff’s Education Based Incarceration program, and the expansion of capacity at the North County Correctional Facility. The pretrial release component is generally considered the report’s centerpiece, and also the element that could be the most controversial.

Baca seemed impressed—publicly professing his support for the plan, and announcing for the first time that, thanks to Austin’s efforts, the complete shutting of MCJ could be accomplished without building a $1.4 billion new jail.

As I wrote in the wake of the press conference, however, Baca’s supportive statements were no guarantee of action. “The sheriff is not committed to implementing the Austin plan,” Sheriff’s Department spokesman Steve Whitmore told WitnessLA.

Even if the Sheriff does wish to implement the plan, he still has to convince the Board of Supervisors, the CEO, the probation department and the local judiciary of its potential efficacy. The prospect of closing the most dangerous jail in America certainly seems daunting.

I reached Austin by phone last Friday to see how things are progressing.

---

What is your role now that the plan has been completed? Are you sticking around to help implementation?

I’m funded to work with the Sheriff to help implement that plan. We’re starting that process. I just had a meeting with the CEO and the Board of Supervisors. We’re putting together the nuts and bolts.

How are things progressing in your estimation?

I’m still optimistic. By June 1st we’ll know how real this thing is going forward. We’ve got some players outside the Sheriff’s department, obviously–the CEO and the supervisors. Everything has to be negotiated. We have a ways to go.

Can the Sheriff enact any elements of your plan unilaterally? Does the money already exist for electronic monitoring of inmates released pretrial?

As far as the money situation, I’m not sure. Legally you can do it. But it’s best we get everyone involved. During the planning process I met with the overseeing judge, who was fully behind the plan. Funding is an issue, perhaps. But Baca can do it legally. He has those powers under the Rutherford case.

What is the first step we should be seeing the department take that would indicate they are taking this report seriously?

The releasing some of the pretrial people. The second thing would be to get the construction plans in place for shutting down parts of Men’s Central Jail and getting it reconfigured for lower risk inmates.

Have any pretrial inmates in the county system been released yet?

No inmates have been released. At least not that I know of. Things could have happened and I wasn’t informed of. But not to my knowledge anyway. We should see something in terms of releases soon though.